X

State appeals court reinstates sex abuse charges against Massena man

Posted 6/12/17

A state appeals court has reversed a decision that resulted in the dismissal of a Massena man’s felony sex abuse charges. On Oct. 3, 2014, St. Lawrence County Court Judge Jerome Richards dismissed …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

State appeals court reinstates sex abuse charges against Massena man

Posted

A state appeals court has reversed a decision that resulted in the dismissal of a Massena man’s felony sex abuse charges.

On Oct. 3, 2014, St. Lawrence County Court Judge Jerome Richards dismissed an indictment against Gary P. Rousaw of Massena. He had been charged with two counts of first-degree sexual abuse, accused of molesting two young girls in December 2013.

Richards dismissed the indictment on the grounds that the St. Lawrence County District Attorney’s Office did not announce readiness for trial within the legally required time, violating Rusaw’s rights to a speedy trial, according to Judge Eugene Devine’s ruling.

Prosecutors had six months from the day of the arrest to declare readiness, which would be around the middle of June, but they didn’t do that until Aug. 11, 2014.

Devine wrote that Rusaw had waived his speedy trial rights in an attempt to get a plea bargain, but he changed defense council in April 2014 and wanted his speedy trial rights reinstated. When the grand jury handed up the indictment later that year in August, Rusaw sought dismissal on speedy trial grounds, Devine wrote.

Rusaw’s new lawyer in 2014 argued that there was never a speedy trial waiver. The DA’s office pointed to an April 2014 letter revoking the speedy trial waiver as proof that Rusaw had waived his rights, Devine wrote.

Rusaw’s council argued the language may have been inserted into the letter in error. Based on that, Judge Devine said there should have been a hearing prior to dismissing the indictment, so the charges are reinstated.

“That being said, the record contains no other proof of a speedy trial waiver and notably omits the sworn statements of defendant and his prior counsel, leaving it entirely plausible that prior defense counsel included the speedy trial language in the April 2014 letter in error. The People accordingly ‘show[ed] that there is a factual dispute’ in response to defendant's claims … but neither they nor defendant ‘conclusively’ established an entitlement to success on the merits … Thus, County Court erred in granting the motion without conducting a hearing, and we remit so that it may do so,” Devine wrote.

The ruling is at goo.gl/2Jhvdg.